Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by naming what it inspects and the failure modes it catches. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is purely observational, whether it modifies state, how findings are reported, or what happens when an issue is detected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the tool's identity as an introspective critic and then lists the specific failure modes it detects. Every word adds value; there is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even though an output schema exists and may cover return values, the tool has nested object parameters and no schema-level parameter descriptions. The description does not explain how to construct trace_history or current_step, making it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It alludes to 'trace' and 'invariant drift,' which loosely map to trace_history and invariants, but it never explains the role of current_step, the expected structure of trace_history, or how invariants are used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is specific: it identifies the tool as an 'introspective reasoning critic' that inspects a trace in-flight to catch cycles, invariant drift, vacuous output, and stalling. This clearly distinguishes it from the many planning, execution, and inference siblings by focusing on real-time trace monitoring rather than task action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'inspect trace in-flight' implies this tool is meant to be used during an ongoing reasoning process to detect problems. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like cognitive.verify_strategy or cognitive.assess_competence, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.